Axis OR Allies

The Field artillery represents short ranged artillery that armies tried to use at the beginning of the war because they thought the war would be fought in fields at relatively short range like the Napoleonic wars. The Germans hid these behind the lines at the end of the war so when the tanks would break through they had a way of stopping them before they got through to there long ranged artillery.

Here is a variant map.
Toying with Guadalcanal, Gilbert and Line SZs to make Solomons 2 SZs from Western USA SZ…

That way, both Hawaii and Carolines get a lot of Islands within 2SZs reach.

Carolines is like the core of a seven star from which you can use 7 branches and reach every PTO Islands, except Aleutians.
Hawaii can reach all south-eastern islands, New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, Carolines, Marshalls and Wake.

DKs Hybrid PTO SZs_36_BM_revised_Midway_Johnston_Line SZ.png

I’d be willing to sign up as the noob player, I just finished reading the rules. IF there exists a way to play online with such a ruleset then I could play online. Why would you need 4 axis players though? Isn’t this game purely zero-sum anyway? So a single axis player and a single allied player should be mostly similar to having multiple players on each team.

@Arreghas:

You are indeed proving to me that changing any rule set is complex indeed and requires very thoughtful analysis.

Yes, that’s quite correct.  An important point to remember is that a complex game such as Global 1940 is similar to other complex devices (such as automotive vehicles): they are systems consisting of multiple interrelated parts which are designed to work together in a particular way and which reflect many design choices and compromises.  Sometimes it’s possible to make minor or even major alterations to some of those components without affecting significantly the performance the overall system, but sometimes even a minor adjustment to a single critical component can wreck the whole thing.  (Take as an example the recent Galaxy Note 7 debacle.  There’s been speculation that Samsung may have changed the electrolyte in the lithium-ion batteries to something less stable, or that it may have gone too far in thinning the separator which keeps the positive and negative sides apart so that the battery doesn’t short-circuit and overheat.)  And design considerations have to take into account the fundamental question of what purpose the system is supposed to serve.  A luxury limousine, a Formula One race-car and a semi-trailer truck are all automotive vehicles, but they’re all optimized to do specific jobs and they all place different leves of emphasis on different capabilities such as passenger comfort, baggage / cargo-holding capacity, speed, fuel consumption efficiency and so forth.

Hello Kreuzfeld.

Thanks for the comments and interest.

Here’s what I’ve found in the 6 or 7 games we’ve played so far with this method.

@Aircraft Carriers: Actually, the games we have played so far did not have restrictions on what friendly nations planes could be on what aircraft carrier.  For instance, ANZAC could launch and recover combat move aircraft from a UK or USA carrier.  Carolina made this suggestion and we are going to incorporate it into our “Axis & Allies & Comintern” House Rules the next time we play in early May.  The reasons are the following:

Allies get a little too much of an advantage in the Pacific if they coordinate right.  ANZAC, being basically land-locked if Japan plays right and gets lucky, can just dedicate their IPC’s to pumping out Fighters and TAC’s …. This free’s USA up to just make CV’s and not worry so much about the planes.  …  Limiting CV’s to just being able to launch Combat Moves with their country’s plane balances this

It could also be argued that having carriers launch attacks with their own country’s planes is more historically accurate.  For sure, USA planes were used on UK carriers.  And I wouldn’t be surprised if USA crews even manned some of the planes (that is a TOTAL guess though).  However, most of the time crews trained long hours with the country and navy that they were going to be flying for.  Therefore, the CAG’s were of the same nation as the CV from which they were operating on.

@Casualties:  Any basically “random” method can be used, including all of the one’s you mentioned.  I gave one example and also left it open to other methods that different groups prefer.

@Analysis & Advantage  I fully agree with you.  The GREATEST advantage to this system is for the Allied and Russian players for sure.  In fact, I think it makes for basically balanced game.  The 6 or 7 games we have played so far have had both Axis and Allied/Russian wins.  ….  Here are some additional things we have noticed:

Like you mentioned, Italy/Germany Can Openers are eliminated on the Eastern Front, greatly helping the Russians.  This is SOMEWHAT mitigated by the new rule that doesn’t allow Allied Forces to step on Russian Controlled territories (and vice-versa) to reinforce Russia in the North … But the overall advantage definitely goes to Russia on this one

It is easier for Italy and Germany to combine forces and hold the Med via Gibraltar.  UK –> USA won’t be able to do Can Openers there.  This lets Italy dig into Africa a little bit more.

ANZAC doesn’t get side-showed as easy.  They can pump out subs, destroyers and maybe even the odd cruiser and incorporate them into the UK or USA fleets.  (historically accurate)

I could go on and on … but basically, “It’s a whole new way at looking at the day.”  :-D

AARHE

I will need to play first to give a true assessment.
My gut thought is one of curious excitement at the new combat system/dice.
It’s natural evolution for this kind of change to come to the game.
If it always stayed the same it would become just another “Revised” edition.
I hope that it’s a well received game as I’d love to see more battle specific games come to be!
Peter
Thoes426 :evil:

Well, I’m a porcelain throne field marshal.
I outrank everyone…
see Stratego rules if you have questions.